rivanna

Hi Don, After your recommendations, I've been reading one of Douglas-Klotz' books -- Blessings of the Cosmos. His work seems in line with Spong's, providing a deeper awareness of the cultural context Jesus lived and spoke in--the translations of his sayings from the Aramaic are poetic, refreshing.

This song by Enigma goes back to the 90’s-- Gregorian chant, French lyrics, a bit Gothic but beautiful

Hi Annie, I was able to access the video after signing onto my YouTube account, though instead of subtitles there is an English transcript available below. From your description it does sound like a film worth watching – thanks.

Welcome! Many people have been led here by Spong’s work. I haven’t been to many operas but love a lot of opera music. Feel free to join any conversation that interests you.

I would agree with Soma—the one needful thing is meditation, maintaining a connection to our innermost selves, finding even a few minutes in the day to quiet the mind and listen or pray in silence-- 'creating room for God.' Maybe progress isn't the word so much as renewal.

Somehow this art seems to fit the mood of a huge storm approaching (and Halloween). Marco Brambilla creates video collages – moving murals or tapestries on epic themes, composed of hundreds of moments from well known films. His latest show is at the Santa Monica art museum. One work, "Civilization" is seen here without the 3D effect but can be enlarged to full screen - To me his vision is fascinating but disturbing (especially with Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" music)... According to curator Lisa Melandri, "You can come at it from a 'wow, this is gorgeous' angle or walk away thinking 'Oh my God, this is what we've become'....The hope is that the beauty can lead you to be thoughtful about the content."

Excellent column. It's good to be reminded of the contrast between emphasis on personal salvation vs the social gospel. Also I like the way Obama describes his agnostic (or ecumenical?) mother as being “the most spiritually awakened person he’d ever known.” There's a new play I've read about, being performed in Charlottesville and other cities-- “Stanley Ann: the unlikely story of Barack Obama’s mother” (her first name comes from her father? not sure). The one-woman show by Michael Kindle reveals how she had to grow as a human and an American-- an idealistic college girl from Kansas who learned how to live in Hawaii, Seattle, Indonesia, and New York. She was ahead of her time in many ways - two interracial marriages, a single mother working in different cultures, standing by her choices with integrity. The play sounds personal rather than partisan, but clearly her expansive vision and courage set an example for her son.

Wow, those are two very thought provoking films, thanks! I watched most of "Waking Life" but didn't absorb it very well—might look at the full script later, which is on line. I did watch all of "Mr. Nobody" –one viewing hardly seems like enough-- fantastic cinematography, musical score and acting – Jared Leto was terrific. Both seem to be about multiple perspectives, with no ultimate answers to the questions they raise. "Waking Life" struck me as affirming existentialism more than any other philosophy it touched on, but that's only my first impression. Seeing the main character of "Mr. Nobody" shift back and forth through time made me reflect on pivotal decisions in my own life, turning points when I could have gone in very different directions, a few times when I could have died, even a choice at age five that I still regret. Unlike the other film, this one has no reference to God, religion, or church (correct me if I'm mis-remembering). There is one heaven-like scene near the beginning, when Nemo is about to be born into the world, and has to choose his own parents…an angel supposedly makes us "forget" our prenatal existence. Other parts of the narration imply we are all at the mercy of entropy, string theory and the butterfly effect. The film asks us to consider - even if we knew the future, would it help us make choices? Are they all equally meaningful? (The story doesn't deal with choices in line of work, involvement with the larger world, or a spiritual dimension; only intimate and family relationships.) Parent-child love appears fraught with failure and pain, and friendship is not part of the picture; but the ending suggested that seeking true love—tenderness and commitment above all, in spite of all-- was the best choice in the long run, at least for the type of person Nemo represented.

With my lack of church involvement, I can only speak to a small part of this topic. It bothers me when people react to any scripture reference as if it automatically indicated a conservative or right wing view. As I understand it, the bible is alternative wisdom that transcends national and social boundaries. While it doesn't advocate specific public policies, according to every PC author I've read, the bible is aligned with a liberal stance on most social issues.

There’s a Newsweek cover story about a neurosurgeon who almost died in 2008 and had visions he describes in this article -- http://www.thedailyb...-afterlife.html His book Proof of Heaven is coming out next week. His story does seem exceptional-- “I’m not the first person to have discovered evidence that consciousness exists beyond the body. But as far as I know, no one before me has ever traveled to this dimension while their cortex was completely shut down, and while their body was under minute medical observation, as mine was for the full seven days of my coma.” Still you have to take into consideration that Alexander was raised as a Christian (though “in name only”) and was familiar with accounts of NDE’s. Ray Moody says, “Dr. Eben Alexander's near-death experience is the most astounding I have heard in more than four decades of studying this phenomenon…" I’m fascinated and skeptical at the same time; but it is reassuring in a way to think about the cosmic voice he claims to have heard --“there is nothing to fear, nothing you can do is wrong, you are loved and cherished forever.”

I don’t always catch Colbert’s show, but think he’s a total genius at satire. His earlier book made me smile on every page, and I see that he has a new one coming out. Besides his comedic talents, he’s philanthropic - he and his wife, a University of Virginia graduate, made quite a donation to UVA recently-- the Colbert Art Scholars program will help students in art, drama, music and dance. And...the man is into Star Trek. What's not to love?

I’m always impressed by Jim Burklo’s insights in his blog “Musings.” His book Open Christianity has been one of my all-time favorites in terms of articulating what PC means to me. Recently he has focused on current events and social issues, but he speaks equally well on creativity, love of nature, mysticism, and many other subjects. Besides being a minister, author, and tcpc affiliate, he teaches a course at USC’s School of Social Work. This week his entry is on “Soulful Citizenship” –from a speech he gave at a California congregational church - http://tcpc.blogs.com/musings/ “Soulful citizenship is about idealistic realism. It’s idealism about making sure that all vulnerable people are protected. It’s realism about how that can be achieved practically…” It’s clear where Burklo stands politically, yet it’s not a divisive knee jerk reaction--he analyzes both sides in a thoughtful, well-informed and balanced way, attentive to spiritual values and how they relate. At least it seems so to me.

I'd suggest this resource http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ I've been reading a book by John Chryssavgis on the desert fathers and mothers...a saying that sticks in my mind, "Lord, we entreat you, make us truly alive." --Sarapion of Thmuis

A few notes after watching the 1973 version on YouTube-- not sure if the entire movie was included. Compared to other Jesus films, this one focuses on the final weeks of his life – and as a rock opera, the dialogue is all sung, not spoken. The only black actor cast as Judas seemed like poor judgment, though he had a fantastic voice. Mary Magdalene the reformed prostitute / anointer / disciple, portrayed as one woman, seems to be the favorite way to present her. Her song "I don't know how to love him" is the most memorable music in the film. There were several poignant scenes, as when Jesus is surrounded with the lame, the blind, and the diseased all begging to be healed by him… he reaches out to touch as many as he can, then cries in exasperation “There’s too little of me.” (We don’t actually see a single instance of healing.) Another powerful scene -- Jesus in the wilderness, asking God why he should let himself be killed-- will it reinforce the three years of his ministry, or will he simply be forgotten? The suicide of Judas is also moving… he takes the purse of money to betray Jesus only after the officials persuade him he can use it to help the poor. Interesting twist on Jesus’ speech at the last supper – “For all you care, this wine could be my blood…for all you care, this bread could be my body.” When Jesus is arrested in Gethsemane by the Romans, he tells his disciples, “Why are you obsessed with fighting? Stick to fishing from now on.” Herod’s corpulent body in shorts, prancing around with his bikini- clad entourage as he mocks Jesus, comes across as a bit silly...maybe intended as comic relief. The crucifixion scene, with its syncopated-jazz background to Jesus’ agonized cry to God, seemed like an awkward finale. Mary Magdalene kneels at his feet, faithful to the last when no one else remains; but there is no burial, no hint of resurrection. The ending left me feeling at a loss. I should add that Ted Neeley was appealing as Jesus, and the photography of the desert in Israel was spectacular. EDIT: After thinking further – perhaps this vision of Jesus’ final days could be called a progressive Christian perspective, defining him as human without any divine attributes or power – a completely non-miraculous story. Yet, when Herod is taunting Jesus he says, “walk across my pool, turn my water into wine” as if those things had happened or were believed by many. So it’s left ambiguous, open to interpretation either way.

This book may be a little too anthropological for my background, but I like some of the Kindle sample chapter -- “I could have titled this book The Moral Mind to convey the sense that the human mind is designed to ‘do’ morality, just as it’s designed to do language, sexuality, music, and many other things…but I chose the title The Righteous Mind to convey the sense that human nature is not just intrinsically moral, it’s also intrinisically moralistic, critical, and judgmental. I want to show you that an obsession with righteousness is the normal human condition, a feature of our evolutionary design.…When I was a teenager I wished for world peace, but now I yearn for a world in which competing ideologies are kept in balance, systems of accountability keep us all from getting away with too much, and fewer people believe that righteous ends justify violent means.” Also I just heard that Haidt is pronounced Hide, not Hate –so I like him better already :-)

Nice song from Dave Matthews’ new album “Away from the world.”

I don’t have much background in sociology or politics, but find this an interesting topic. About Jonathan Haidt, maybe this context is what was being referred to - “Political liberals tend to rely primarily on the moral foundation of care, followed by fairness, and liberty. Social conservatives are much more concerned about loyalty, authority and sanctity.” I tend to agree with George’s suggested parallel, that there is more tribalism among conservatives and more altruism or ‘widening circle of concern’ among liberals-- at least as far as public policy, government programs etc. However, looking at articles on line, it seems that studies show conservatives give more as individuals to charity. It's not that simple though. According to a New York Times column, conservative donations often end up building extravagant churches, while liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities. If donations to religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. Conservatives give blood more often. One of the most generous groups in America is gays. Of course, when it comes to statistics, volunteering one’s time, giving away goods and services, can’t be measured. In terms of of evolving from tribalism toward altruism, universal love —the ideal of the new testament -maybe the first goal is to become more aware of one’s own tribal thinking. That in itself would go a long way. Also I think Dutch’s point --our sphere of influence should determine where we attend to the brokenness in the world --is well taken. In Jesus’ parable of the good Samaritan, the “neighbor” is on a personal, not group level-- the individual in our path, the one we are moved to help, able to help. In my experience that is how philanthropy works best.

Love the Google interactive logo for Trek’s 46th anniversary! Also – the title of the next film has been revealed – “Star Trek into Darkness.”

There's a new book out by Derek Flood, it's called Healing the Gospel - he was an outstanding contributor to Beliefnet discussions for years-- http://www.amazon.co...ag=therebgod-20 He has a blog at HuffPost this week which I thought was highly persuasive -- http://www.huffingto...hp_ref=religion Also 2 other new books look interesting, one by Brian McLaren, Why Did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha, and Mohammed Cross the Road?: Christian Identity in a Multi-Faith World and another one from Marcus Borg: Evolution of the Word: The New Testament in the order the books were written.

Thanks for reminding us of the Phoenix affirmations—to me, they always seemed like a nice complement to the 8 points of tcpc, in more expressive language perhaps. One difference is that third part, love or care for the self, which you don’t see articulated in the 8 points. A Congregational minister has been focusing on the Phoenix affirmations in his blog-- http://brimfilled.blogspot.com/

To me, it's quite clear what Yvonne meant, not feeling personally culpable but embarrassed that the US has this image to some extent. Also it is distressing to see Christianity associated with the type of behavior pictured, even if it was intended as sarcasm. The news and politics can really get to me, if I don't balance it out with some spiritual reading. Not to get off topic, but to say that 'shame is a healthy impetus for development' seems like the opposite of what Jesus exemplified in his life...he transformed people by accepting them just as they were, especially those who were marginalized--social misfits and outcasts--sharing a table with them, treating them as equals.

IMHO, to view gun murders in the same way as an accident, fatal disease or natural disaster, something we can’t do anything about, have no responsibility for, is to condone them. Some claim that the government intrudes on privacy, the right to self protection, by requiring background checks or by banning assault weapons. But what could be more intrusive than invading a house of worship and attacking peaceful, reverent people.

Raven, I totally agree, if guns are the problem, more guns are not the solution. I admire Mayor Bloomberg for continuing to speak out on this. "It shows you the power of an irrational single-advocacy group…They've created this aura that if you don't go with them, they'll take you out and destroy your ability to feed your family." It seems that the NRA has a stranglehold on the US government. Bloomberg has called for a federal requirement for background checks at gun shows, so that no one with a criminal record or history of mental illness can purchase firearms; and he advocates better databases on gun ownership so that law enforcement agencies can work together more effectively.

Joseph, at least we feel the same way about the need for more thorough background checks, testing, etc. I agree with George, there’s no plausible legal or moral right for people to own assault weapons. It helps to hear the perspectives from Australia and New Zealand – how other countries handle these problems, with better results.

Well, I’m surprised that we differ on this issue. There is a far more dangerous weapon than the assault rifle that is responsible for over double the deaths caused by guns in the US. It is readily available to most all people and doesn't require a background check. Of course i am speaking of the automobile... How often do we hear of people driving into crowds to kill? Cars aren’t weapons used to vent anger on random strangers-- guns used to carry out intentional, long-planned hate crimes is totally different from car accidents. I agree that banning assault weapons wouldn't prevent all mass killings, but I bet it would save many lives. What do we have to lose?